The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama 's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's ...

<quoted text>Thats the thing about real freedom Jacques, and ones right to pursue their own happiness. It is not a crime to refuse to associate with certain people, or to refuse to do business with them privately for any reason. I'm not saying it's always right in every case, but freedom permits some to be fools and idiots. It's about as senseless as declaring that all dogs can no longer be racists and thinking you can make it so by that declaration. Some dogs simply don't like black people.

I've lived in communities that were 99% black. Many Whites TRAINED their dogs to be racists. And they were, believe me, threatening any black that came to within 500 feet..But not a peep from them when a white person came along.

Like it or not, it is not a right to refuse service on account of pursuing your own happiness or your refusal to do business with someone for any reason as you put it . It's a crime enshrined in law. "I just beat up my neighbour because he wouldn't let me pursue my own happiness..."

<quoted text>Explain the following away and twist in the wind once more :Jacques from Ottawa wrote:<quoted text>The only perversion around here is you.Are you telling us that homosexuality is a choice?The Honorable Justice LRS wrote:Are you saying it isn't?P.S.: And pray tell, who is perverted BY CHOICE and why?

My statement was quite clear. And, out of which left field did that last sentence come from? It has no relation to what I said. Comprehension, Path! I don't think you can read anything without twisting it into something it isn't. Tx/Rx error is my guess. LMAO!

<quoted text>My statement was quite clear. And, out of which left field did that last sentence come from? It has no relation to what I said. Comprehension, Path! I don't think you can read anything without twisting it into something it isn't. Tx/Rx error is my guess. LMAO!

Okay, let's make it clear. Answer this :Is homosexuality a choice, yes or no?

If you're subject to a foreign power (like Obobblehead) then you're not a citizen. Deal with it and try not to be duped again.

Dual citizens are citizens, and their dual status does not affect their Natural Born Citizen status. Like Obama, Eisenhower and Woodrow Wilson were dual citizens at birth If the writers of the US Constitution had meant to excluded dual citizens, THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US---and they didn't.

Why does the Honorable Justice LRS ignore good conservative legal principles like strict construction, which holds that unless the Constitution says something it does not mean it. Why does the Honorable Justice LRS ignore good libertarian principles that say that neither a right nor a privilege can be taken from people unless the Constitution specifically says it. Well, the Constitution DOES NOT SAY IT. There is nothing in the Constitution about dual citizens, nor is there a word in it (or in any of the writings of the members of the Constitutional Convention) that says that the US-born children of foreigners should be treated any differently than the US-born children of US citizens.

Millions of the US-born children of foreigners fought for the USA in two world wars, and there is not a shred of evidence that they were any less loyal than the US-born children of US citizens. And there is not a shred of evidence that the writers of the Constitution thought so either.

LMOA!! We citizens that know the limitations of the USSC can see that it has turned out nothing but Spam for the last 115+ years.I can see you are a devoted fan of what the USSC has been shoving down you throat and up your rectum. Keep up the good work, tool!! You will be buried with the rotting meat you gorge yourself with.

<quoted text>If the parents are IN the USA they, like everybody else (except for foreign diplomats), are subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. As for Howard, his views were not shared by Bingham and Trumbull or by the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case.And millions of US-born citizens whose parents were foreigners (even those with dual citizenship) were loyal to the USA in two world wars. As Bingham and Trumbull and US law all say, the citizenship of the parents has no effect whatever on the Natural Born Citizen status of children born in the USA (except for the children of foreign diplomats)..Moreover, Howard's OPINION (or any opinion for that matter) has no effect on the US Constitution. If the Constitution does not say something, it does not mean it---even if the writers forgot to put it in. And there is nothing in the US Constitution, and that includes the 14th Amendment, that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not US citizens or not Natural Born US Citizens. So, under strict construction (Remember that?) it is not allowed to claim that the 14th Amendment provides that the US-born children of foreigners are not citizens or not Natural Born Citizens. There simply are no words in the document saying what you claim. And, under Libertarian principles (remember them???) it is not allowed to take away a right or a privilege without there being specific authorization to take it away in the US Constitution, and there is no such specific authorization.Bingham, and Trumbull, and Hatch, and Graham and the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case and the ten appeals courts that have all ruled on presidential eligibility are all right, and you are WRONG.

NASTY!!! Aliens while in the US are controlled by treaties, they have never been "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", this is only a condition that a citizen enjoys.Since the Constitution doesn't recognize a dual-citizenship, but if it did it would carry the same baggage as a naturalized citizen, it would not be eligible to be POTUS, just due to "foreign influence".

<quoted text>LMOA!! We citizens that know the limitations of the USSC can see that it has turned out nothing but Spam for the last 115+ years.I can see you are a devoted fan of what the USSC has been shoving down you throat and up your rectum. Keep up the good work, tool!! You will be buried with the rotting meat you gorge yourself with.

Poor Dufus. Adamant in his failure. Celebrating his ignorance. Alone in his closet

<quoted text>NASTY!!! Aliens while in the US are controlled by treaties, they have never been "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", this is only a condition that a citizen enjoys.Since the Constitution doesn't recognize a dual-citizenship, but if it did it would carry the same baggage as a naturalized citizen, it would not be eligible to be POTUS, just due to "foreign influence".

EVERYBODY in the USA except for the families of foreign diplomats is subject to the USA.

You cannot read into the US Constitution something that it does not say. And it does not say that two US citizen parents are required to be president.

Under strict construction (remember that?) you cannot interpret the Constitution as saying something unless it actually does says it-----and it does NOT say that two citizen parents are required or that a dual citizen is barred from becoming president. It does not say either of those things.

Under libertarian principles neither a law nor the Constitution can take away a right or a privilege unless the Constitution specifically allows that thing to be taken away. And, the Constitution does not specifically take away the right or privilege of the US-born children of foreigners to become president, and it does not take away the right or privilege of the US-born dual citizens either. It does not take away either of those things. It does not SAY any such thing.

And yet slimy Dale wants gullible people to ignore good conservative legal principles such as strict construction and good conservative moral principles such as libertarianism. Why?

The Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." And there is nothing in either the Constitution or in ANY of the writings of the men who were in the Constitutional Convention, or such other American leaders at the time as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. There NOTHING in any of their writings that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not as eligible as the US-born children of US citizens. Nothing. But slimy Dale would like to throw out that principle too.

There is NOTHING in the US Constitution or in the writings of any of the framers that says that the US-born children of US citizens are any better than the US-born children of foreigners. NOTHING.

And yet slimy Dale thinks that he can convince a few gullible people that the writers of the US Constitution (who never said any such thing) really believed that the US-born children of foreigners (such as perhaps your father or grandfather) are really not as good citizens as the US-born children of US-citizens.

Well, do you think that you are any better a US citizen than your father or grandfather? Do you think that George Washington, who never said any such thing, thought that your US-born ancestors who had foreign parents should be lower-level citizens than the children of US parents at the time? Why does slimy Dale want you to think that George Washington and Ben Franklin and Alexander Hamilton and the others thought that your father or grandfather should be a second-class citizen?

Why does slimy Dale want to throw out strict construction judicial interpretation AND libertarian principles, and ALSO throw out "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"? Who says that the US-born children of foreigners are not created equal with the US born children of US citizens in terms of being eligible to be president? Only slimy Dale. Why Slimy Dale? Why?

<quoted text>Poor Dufus. Adamant in his failure. Celebrating his ignorance. Alone in his closet

Just keep showing us how badly you've been snowed. The entire country now knows Obobblehead is a liar, why do you love him so? Are you anti-America? Are you even an American? I mean you've either been completely snowed or you're too dense to know when you're being lied to. Or, you're just against America. Which is it, Twink?

<quoted text>Just keep showing us how badly you've been snowed. The entire country now knows Obobblehead is a liar, why do you love him so? Are you anti-America? Are you even an American? I mean you've either been completely snowed or you're too dense to know when you're being lied to. Or, you're just against America. Which is it, Twink?

Not liking someone does not make them born in a foreign country. Not liking someone does not change the meaning of Natural Born Citizen. Even the fact that someone lies---as have many many presidents---is neither proof of birth in a foreign country nor changes the definition of Natural Born Citizen.

<quoted text>EVERYBODY in the USA except for the families of foreign diplomats is subject to the USA.You cannot read into the US Constitution something that it does not say. And it does not say that two US citizen parents are required to be president.Under strict construction (remember that?) you cannot interpret the Constitution as saying something unless it actually does says it-----and it does NOT say that two citizen parents are required or that a dual citizen is barred from becoming president. It does not say either of those things.Under libertarian principles neither a law nor the Constitution can take away a right or a privilege unless the Constitution specifically allows that thing to be taken away. And, the Constitution does not specifically take away the right or privilege of the US-born children of foreigners to become president, and it does not take away the right or privilege of the US-born dual citizens either. It does not take away either of those things. It does not SAY any such thing.And yet slimy Dale wants gullible people to ignore good conservative legal principles such as strict construction and good conservative moral principles such as libertarianism. Why?The Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." And there is nothing in either the Constitution or in ANY of the writings of the men who were in the Constitutional Convention, or such other American leaders at the time as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. There NOTHING in any of their writings that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not as eligible as the US-born children of US citizens. Nothing. But slimy Dale would like to throw out that principle too.There is NOTHING in the US Constitution or in the writings of any of the framers that says that the US-born children of US citizens are any better than the US-born children of foreigners. NOTHING.And yet slimy Dale thinks that he can convince a few gullible people that the writers of the US Constitution (who never said any such thing) really believed that the US-born children of foreigners (such as perhaps your father or grandfather) are really not as good citizens as the US-born children of US-citizens.Well, do you think that you are any better a US citizen than your father or grandfather? Do you think that George Washington, who never said any such thing, thought that your US-born ancestors who had foreign parents should be lower-level citizens than the children of US parents at the time? Why does slimy Dale want you to think that George Washington and Ben Franklin and Alexander Hamilton and the others thought that your father or grandfather should be a second-class citizen?Why does slimy Dale want to throw out strict construction judicial interpretation AND libertarian principles, and ALSO throw out "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"? Who says that the US-born children of foreigners are not created equal with the US born children of US citizens in terms of being eligible to be president? Only slimy Dale. Why Slimy Dale? Why?

LMAO!!!

ARTICLE III.

If Chinese laborers, or Chinese of any other class, now wither permanently or temporarily residing in the territory of the United States, meet with ill treatment at the hands of any other persons, the Government of the United States will exert all its power to devise measures for their protection and to secure to them the same rights, privileges, immunities, and exemptions as may be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation, and to which they are entitled by treaty.__________

NASTY!!! See, aliens while in the US are controlled/protected by treaties, they have never been "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof (US Constitution)".

<quoted text>LMAO!!!ARTICLE III.If Chinese laborers, or Chinese of any other class, now wither permanently or temporarily residing in the territory of the United States, meet with ill treatment at the hands of any other persons, the Government of the United States will exert all its power to devise measures for their protection and to secure to them the same rights, privileges, immunities, and exemptions as may be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation, and to which they are entitled by treaty.__________NASTY!!! See, aliens while in the US are controlled/protected by treaties, they have never been "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof (US Constitution)".

I give that clownstomp a perfect "10"! Beautifully executed and you really stuck the landing! LMAO!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.